Oooh still going on. I wonder how people feel about this douchebaggery-in-the-name-of-religion:

“I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that’s something God intended to happen.”
— http://news.sky.com/story/1001896/republican-rape-baby-is-gift-from-god

Which church?
The one that’s whispering in the Government’s ear.

Just say it, go on. Why so coy?

Most recently, a letter received from her local MP by a user of this very forum, stating that he didn’t want to support changing marriage laws for fear of upsetting the church. Perhaps he’s misguided as well.

Can i just clarify. Your understanding of this unnamed church’s teaching on gay marriage, is based on what you read on this forum about a letter a letter written by an MP to a person on this forum?

May i suggest you look for some better sources?

I don’t have a long list of citations and dated references, sorry. I didn’t know there was going to be a test.

Not a test, only that I would expect you to have actually found out about something before you criticised it

Though it does interest me why there is such emphasis on the teachings of the Churches, Catholic or otherwise, by people for whom religion is largely irrelevant when in fact they live in a country, with a democratic process, which also forbids same sex marriage. Surely that would be the greater issue

Because the church carries power within the government. Without this intervention, that law would be considerably easier to revoke.

Here’s a question, because you were asking about misconceptions. Can you educate me as to which Christian churches officially support same-sex marriage?

Doesn’t the church teach that the pope is infallible? – Genuine question BTW.

Only in the very rare case of ex-cathedra statements, well other bits as well I think, but this is the only relevant one, I think

Are they always nice to us or to non believers

Mostly, they are, yes.

Junkyard – let me put it another way.

What’s wrong with simply being wrong?

Here’s a question, because you were asking about misconceptions. Can you educate me as to which Christian churches officially support same-sex marriage?

Nope

*edit* but here’s a list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_churches

Because the church carries power within the government. Without this intervention, that law would be considerably easier to revoke.

Right, so because your government won’t change the law, you blame ‘the church’?
That’s easy

What’s wrong with simply being wrong?

When wrong constitutes ‘educating’ people about how condoms are against god, I would say pretty damn wrong. Reprehensible in fact.

That’s easy

Well, it’s factual. It’s far from easy.

When wrong constitutes ‘educating’ people about how condoms are against god, I would say pretty damn wrong. Reprehensible in fact.

And when it involves prejudice against a group of people who would quite like the same rights as everyone else.

When wrong constitutes ‘educating’ people about how condoms are against god, I would say pretty damn wrong. Reprehensible in fact.

Who does this?

That’s easy
Well, it’s factual. It’s far from easy.

You live in a democracy. If you don’t like it work to change it. But change that first before you try to change the churches’ views.

Who does this?

Christian missionaries in Africa, for a start.

When wrong constitutes ‘educating’ people about how condoms are against god, I would say pretty damn wrong. Reprehensible in fact.

You’re conflating many issues.

The church does stuff, religious people do stuff, but that’s not in any way the same thing as believing in God.

Anti gay rights, anti condom etc etc are all very demonstrably wrong because they have serious negative consequences. However these are things that PEOPLE do in the NAME of God.

If I believe the moon is made of cheese, why on earth would you try and persuade me otherwise?

If I try and get vulnerable old women to hand over cash to fund my cheese moon mission, that’s clearly wrong. But that’s a different action and issue.

That’s why I asked what’s wrong with simply being wrong?

If you don’t like it work to change it.

What exactly do you think we’re doing?

However these are things that PEOPLE do in the NAME of God.

As opposed to what, exactly? Gibbons? Lamp-posts?

We wouldn’t choose a house or car on such flimsy knowledge but most people seem happy to write off religion as man-made nonsense without ever making a proper effort to find out what it’s really all about for themselves, first hand.

Hmmm, I suspect many (most?) of us were brought up in a manner which fairly well indoctrinated us into religion.

The points have never heard properly raised or answered by Christians who are against homosexuality, is what about all the other stuff in the bible that has now been conveniently forgotten/ignored because it’s irrelevant or just daft in the modern world? Why is homosexuality such a major issue? There’s really not much about it in the bible is there?

Surely any sensible person can see that there were some rules which at the time might have been considered useful for ‘survival of the tribe’ but are now completely outdated.

And ditch_jockey’s comments about only doing good things for religious reasons is pretty telling IMO. Why do you have to have religion to tell you to be a decent person?

Or indeed gibbons up lamp posts….

If you don’t like it work to change it.
What exactly do you think we’re doing?

I think you’re arguing the toss on an Internet forum. Did you vote? Did you vote for a party whose views on same-sex marriage reflected your own?

Christian missionaries in Africa, for a start.

Really? Where? What kind of Christians? Evidence?

I think you’re arguing the toss on an Internet forum. Did you vote? Did you vote for a party whose views on same-sex marriage reflected your own?

Good point, well made. However, it’s perhaps arguably more productive for me to challenge prejudiced views held by people in my immediate circle of influence than simply registering a single vote which will get lost amongst millions. The crux is that millions of people are being treated as inferior citizens with fewer rights, and that isn’t right. Would they be best served by us nodding and smiling and keeping quiet? That’s how we got into this mess in the first place.

Also, the medium isn’t relevant. Does the fact that it’s on the Internet inherently devalue the discussion? Would it have more credibility in a national newspaper or on a TV channel?

But change that first before you try to change the churches’ views.

This task would be made easier if the church minded its own business, something that they have failed to do

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-19386655

Also, the medium isn’t relevant. Does the fact that it’s on the Internet inherently devalue the discussion?

Yes

Really? Where? What kind of Christians? Evidence?

How about the last Pope, does he count as a Christian? He gave a speech in Africa saying condoms were sinful and they should prevent the spread of HIV by not having sex.

Didn’t the current one also say something about it being ok to use condoms but only if you were a prostitute, or something? I may be misremembering, I’d have to look it up.

However, it’s perhaps arguably more productive for me to challenge prejudiced views held by people in my immediate circle of influence than simply registering a single vote which will get lost amongst millions.

This, I think is a very salient point. People, and in particular peoples behaviour and prejudices are “heavy”, they have a lot of inertia and are difficult to change. Legislation on the other hand is easier and far more simple to sort out. Low level challenging of unacceptable behaviour by respected peers and equals is arguably going to effect a bigger change in a shorter period than voting for the appropriate party who will then change the law.

Ah, here we go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_AIDS

From the above (emphasis mine),

In September 1990, John Paul II visited the small town of Mwanza, in northern Tanzania, and gave a speech that many believe set the tone for the AIDS crisis in Africa. Being unequivocal, he told his audience that condoms were a sin in any circumstances. He lauded family values and praised fidelity and abstinence as the only true ways to combat the disease.

In December 1995, the Pontifical Council for the Family issued guidelines saying that parents must also reject the promotion of so-called “safe sex” or “safer sex”, a dangerous and immoral policy based on the deluded theory that the condom can provide adequate protection against AIDS.

In March 2009, the Pope [Benedict] was sharply criticized after he stated that “if there is no human dimension, if Africans do not help [by responsible behaviour], the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it“
…
in response to the charge that “It is madness to forbid a high-risk population to use condoms”, Pope Benedict stated:
“There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality. “

Are we suggesting that the Vatican’s views can be safely ignored for the purposes of discussing Xtianity as a whole, now?

No, these people are Agnostics.

I was trying to keep it simple, for the sake of below:

Nonsense.

Really?
Both atheism and agnosticism are positions of ignorance, one because it is a logical fallacy, the other by open admission.

ive met and had to endure christians saying and bellieving HIV is gods retribution for being gay, sadly brainwashing is part of the chriostian church as is holding the same line and not devaiting from it.

Both atheism and agnosticism are positions of ignorance, one because it is a logical fallacy, the other by open admission.

An odd argument.

It is a big universe. There are a lot of things out there we don’t know about.
We’re all “ignorant” in that regard.

…one because it is a logical fallacy…

I have three questions.

Which one is guilty of the fallacy?
What fallacy is it that they are guilty of?
Why are they guilty of it?

Really? Where? What kind of Christians? Evidence?

In 1997, the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family stated:

The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable

In 2010 the Pope stated:

She [the Catholic Church] of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.

So it appears that the position of the church has changed in a mere 13 years from irreformably against contraception to reluctantly accepting it.

You think they reached this position through revelation and the word of god? Or that they face compromise or death in the face of modern secular standards?

Can you clarify what you mean by repealed, specifically in this context?
What is it you actually want repealed and from where?

ok maybe bad wording on my part. Do you think it’s time the various religions stopped trying to interfere with certain legal activities consenting adults got upto in the privacy of their own homes. Don’t want to narrow my argument here tho, various religions have a long list of perfectly ordinary stuff they’d like to interfere with.

As to cougar changing the government if he doesn’t like how things are, well the church has a bit of a head start here. Cardinal this or bishop that says “we’re against gay marriage” and have helpful stats of the number of catholics or CoE peeps in this country. The fact that plenty of those catholics and CoE-ers reckon that gay marriage is perfectly fine doesn’t really matter. Apparently there’s 41million christians in the UK (tho only about 2million who actually go to church – hmmmm) That’s a whole lot of voters, but I bet a whole shedload of them disagree with what religion HQ say to the government.
Which atheist representative has a direct line to the government to get our views across?

Though it does interest me why there is such emphasis on the teachings of the Churches, Catholic or otherwise, by people for whom religion is largely irrelevant when in fact they live in a country, with a democratic process, which also forbids same sex marriage. Surely that would be the greater issue

I live in a country whose head of state and head of the state church are one and the same person. It is also a country in which senior figures in this state church hold unelected positions within the upper chamber of the legislature.

That’s why the position/teachings of the christian church bother me. Perhaps you live in a different country?

Really?
Both atheism and agnosticism are positions of ignorance, one because it is a logical fallacy, the other by open admission.

I think I see where you’re going with that now, but I think perhaps it’s a little disingenuous.

The logical fallacy you refer to, presumably, is that you cannot disprove a negative. We’re back to my skirting-board unicorns again. I think though that it’s a bit of a leap to suggest this is ‘ignorance’. Isn’t ignorance of something which isn’t there ostensibly the same logical fallacy?

Broadly saying it’s ignorance implies that atheism is simply the state in which we’re in because we’ve not learned the truth yet. This isn’t really a fair assessment. For all practical purposes I’m sure beyond reasonable doubt that I know the truth where divine creators are concerned, but I’m more than happy to be proved wrong and revise my viewpoints accordingly.

If you’re suggesting that we’re ignorant of knowing for definite how the universe was created etc., then that’s fair enough, but that’s not merely true of atheism, it’s applicable to the entire human race.

Also, which political party is calling for say, then end of the official status as a religious country, where the Queen is head of the church and state, and senior bishops sit unelected in the House of Lords, getting to rule on our laws? It’s a ridiculous anachronism. Is there a party I can vote for that agrees with me?

Which atheist representative has a direct line to the government to get our views across?

Well, there’s Nick Clegg 😆

Well, there’s Nick Clegg

I don’t believe in mythical heads of political parties.

I have three questions.

Which one is guilty of the fallacy?
What fallacy is it that they are guilty of?
Why are they guilty of it?

The atheist (depending on personal definition).
That they can prove the negative.
Because they can’t.

That they can prove the negative.

Rejection of a non falsifiable belief is not ignorance. It is not for those of us who do not believe to prove that there is no god it is for those that do believe to prove that there is.

Once they do that then I’ll happliy convert, although I may never use a zebra crossing again.

I think most people who consider themselves atheists actually think:

‘there is almost certainly no god, but the possibility is so tiny that it’s really not worth thinking about’

@cougar

I wasn’t using ignorance in a derogatory way, I’m in the Huxley camp, albeit in a tent that is pretty damn certain. 🙂